Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

In One Word - Tell us your thoughts on NEED or GREED

    • 106 posts
    October 12, 2020 1:11 PM PDT

    In today's MMO community... Need if you need, need if you're greedy.

    • 359 posts
    October 12, 2020 3:22 PM PDT
    Suggestions on different ways to improve need / greed:

    1). If you roll Need, the item becomes unsellable until you've gained 4 levels or played 20 hours.

    2). If you roll Need, the names of everyone else in the group is attached as metadata to the item. When you sell it, the proceeds are divided evenly.

    3). The Need:Greed ratio if each player is displayed evey time they roll.

    4). The less a player selects Need, the more likely they will win Greed rolls.

    5). Rename "Need" to something like "I will equip this item now" and rename "Greed" to "I might equip this item later or will sell it". It's wordy, bit it's clear and there won't be much confusion on exactly what the terms mean.
    • 693 posts
    October 12, 2020 3:42 PM PDT

    It's greedy to be needy.  Or maybe people need to be greedy?  I can't remember which.

     

    On a more serious note I really do hope that Pantheon brings back the idea that loot actually matters.  If it does than the idea of "need" and "greed" will both matter again.  They quit mattering when items were so easily upgradable.  In another game I played if someone rolled need on something that I wanted for my character and I lost it really wasn't a big deal because I would find it or something better very soon.

    I'm hoping in Pantheon items are rare enough that it ends up mattering.  This will get us back into situations where people have to make decisions about their reputations.  Taking an item that you intend to sell is technically fine to do, but you'll soon be known for that and maybe less people will be willing to group with you.  

     

    After all that here's my "one word" answer - "GroupwithFriends"

    • 175 posts
    October 12, 2020 3:51 PM PDT

    Futile

    • 23 posts
    October 12, 2020 5:07 PM PDT

    Irrelevant 

     

    @Ranarius is the only one who seems to understand. Having the ability to need/greed on any item in the game, for any reason ultimately means nothing. If you win, you will link it to your friends and guild mates and show off your new wares. If you lose it, you will most likely ask the person who won if they will use it, if they answer yes, you will continue your pursuit for the item. If they say no, you will most likely ask them if you can purchase it at a discount since you helped get it for them. All of this being the journey along what ever path you take in the game. 

     

    It is also an assumption of how itemization will work in Pantheon by all of us - we are all assuming that it will be like "X" game that we use to play. Fact is, we dont fully know yet. If there will be no drop, or is everything gonna be tradeable? will no drop items be linked to the players who helped get it for a short duration so it can be traded?

     

    What we do know, weather we admit it or not, is that we all want our reputation to matter - and the reputation of asshats to matter. The above scenario happened to me in EQ 1 probably 5 or 6 times during a few hour span in a single group. The ones who were greedy and the ones who were nice were well known by the time they got to max level.

    • 757 posts
    October 12, 2020 5:41 PM PDT
    Gotta agree with Ren and Eight on this one.
    • 299 posts
    October 12, 2020 6:47 PM PDT

     

    Unworkable.

     

    As I have played, I have come to realize everyone can find a reason to "need" something.  Thus roll on everything, it is the only fair way.

    • 693 posts
    October 12, 2020 7:31 PM PDT

    I see people tossing the word fair around a lot.  For me it's not about what's fair and what's not fair.  It's about the social aspect of the game.  How loot is dealt with is definitely a social aspect and I'd prefer it to be left up to players and groups to determine how that is done as opposed to a coded mechanic.  Take away the discussion about loot and you take away one more reason to socialize with people.   

     

    • 8 posts
    October 12, 2020 10:08 PM PDT

    Needed > 

     

    Reason: 

    Most of the time the party or raid group will decided things ahead of time anyway. And for those who don't there needs to be a defualt. 1

     

              For P.U.G.'s:

    So having a Need / Greed / Pass system really applies to P.U.G. groups more than anything. Even if items could be need rolled by everyone in the group everytime they drop. It would allow players to just adopt a "standard" for rolling on dropped items. Having a system in place would cut down on Greifing and "ninja looting" as well because no one person would be able to grab every drop from the downed enemies, saving VR from ticket times and disputes.  (IT WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS, People always have and always will do petty things in a video game.)

            For everyone else:

    I do not believe that the system is important at the end of the day however! It is more about having a uniform, standard, or default way to roll on loot that is easy to use. With a need / greed / pass system its just a simple way to have that system as a backbone to that process. It would be another tool to help those with predetermined systems be more manageable in game as well. A real Quality of life thing is all it really comes down too. 

     

    Unfortunately if there is not a system that could stop people from looting and dashing then there will be no "Fair" for the Folks that have said something about it in this thread. YOU might be a good person but never assume that someone who is protected behind a screen is . . . sad facts of the times. 

    In closing thought, because I had to edit this post several times, You could really do everything with just a Roll / Pass system, making loot get automated sucks for those who want the experience, but it protects more than it harms to have a system in place. One with high charisma could argue that this would incentivise more conversation between players, in a party or raid, to talk it out and make sure that whoever can use the item is rolling on it, or reverse. 

     

    Shadowbound said:

    In today's MMO community... Need if you need, need if you're greedy.

     

    This is the right of it!



     

     


    This post was edited by JonWane at October 12, 2020 10:26 PM PDT
    • 23 posts
    October 12, 2020 11:49 PM PDT

    If everyone rolls need on everything.....WHY even have a greed option? it makes no sense..

    • 403 posts
    October 13, 2020 1:46 AM PDT

    NeedOverGreedButGreedOKAfterThat

    I agree with others that a 1 word answer for a question asking for thoughts on an or question is a bit un-doable.

    MyNonOneWordAnswer:

    When grouping; items that make the group stronger with use (i.e. it is an upgrade for a group member (or will be in the near future)) has to be offered to those characters who will make the best use of it first. If two or more characters can make equal use of it, then greed between them is fine. This in turn makes the groups stonger and more able to take on harder mobs which in turn means that the group as a whole will receive better rewards. 

    If it is not an upgrade, then greed is fine.

    If it is a progression item then all those who are on the quest and need it at that point should have need rolls. If there are none, then greed rolls.

    Every non-trash item should be considered before an open greed is allowed.

    Every item can be examined to indicate if it is an upgrade and I totally disagree that this cannot work because it is subjective. It is pretty easy to understand if an item is an upgrade or not. It is also historically easy to identify if an item is required for quest progression and whether a character is on a stage to be able to use the item, too.

    To just greed on everything, is just that, total greed. It is self centered and doesnt directly help the group as a whole. Groups are more effective if they work together and share the spoils in an intelligent manner and increase their effectiveness over individual bank balances. There is nothing worse than seeing an item go to someone who cannot use it over someone who can gain immediate benefit from it. This can easily cause resentment and friction in groups and can lead to early break ups and is in my opinion very counter productive. 

    I think there are also aguments for "fairness" and for the "social", but actually, if it helps an individual advance, and that individual helps the group, then the entire group benefits. This, over time harbours trust and friendship. If an item is taken that could be used by another, but is sold instead, then only that individual benefits.

    Need before greed every time!

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 13, 2020 1:57 AM PDT
    • 2168 posts
    October 13, 2020 4:38 AM PDT

    Ranarius said:

    I see people tossing the word fair around a lot.  For me it's not about what's fair and what's not fair.  It's about the social aspect of the game.  How loot is dealt with is definitely a social aspect and I'd prefer it to be left up to players and groups to determine how that is done as opposed to a coded mechanic.  Take away the discussion about loot and you take away one more reason to socialize with people.   

    This is supposed to be a one-word thread, so I didn't want to get into a discussion, but I have to say that, yes, looting can be a very valuable social aspect of the game. It can also be very destructive to the social aspect of the game.

    I suggest to have a Need/Greed feature is to set a false *expectation* and is not allowing the social aspect of looting to evolve naturally and, often, not positively either.

    To allow a natural and, yes, fair evolution of social looting, you need to start with a neutral system. Random allocation is the *only* truly neutral/fair/impartial/non-interpretive allocation. If VR is to support/suggest/include a system so as to *not* bias or prejudice social looting, then it must be *very* careful about what it includes.

    Some would say having *no* system, ie. having free-for-all looting, supports the most natural and social looting and they would have a good point, BUT what the game would be tacitly endorsing is that 'ninja' looting is fine and normal, which, for the health of the community, I would suggest - and I think we all know - is far from fine.

    So, VR need to default to *something*, but using Need/Greed as a 'default' for the game would prejudice any social interaction and suggest that anything but considering your 'need' is 'greedy'. But the concept of 'need' is, of course, open to personal interpretation and abuse unless VR describe exactly what it means (and if they could do that, they should just automate it. Spoiler: They won't because it can't *be* well described).

    To encourage a positive, social looting system that also, yes, is fair, you can only allocate randomly to whoever was in on the fight and *then* the winner can trade, keep, give away, destroy, or do whatever they like, in discussion with the group or as arrangements on-the-side, but with no prejudice, expectation or pressure *other than* the social interaction with other players and the reputation gained from it.

    The warrior should get the breastplate? Well, then the warrior needs to ask politely if they can trade for it, or even borrow it for the rest of the session. That social interaction is priceless. Should they automatically be allocated it, though?...

    With random allocation, the game has acted as fairly as is possible and it needs to be understood by players that one person's 'need' is not more important than another's - it is then up to the players to 'do the social thing' and talk about what happens next, but with the basic understanding that what has already happened *is fair and neutral* and what happens next as a result of social interaction is above-and-beyond that basic fair allocation and there should be no expectation of what *should* happen.

    I'm beginning to think as I type these thoughts that looting is something that should definitely be included in Play Nice Policy. It should be spelled out that everyone in a fight deserves an equal chance at the loot and, after loot is awarded, if you want that loot, you have to ask the winner nicely to trade for it and not complain about the loot distribution being 'unfair' or the winner acting 'unfairly', because that is the opposite of what has happened.

    If a group wants a different loot policy than that then it should be clear that is an *exception* to what is neutral and fair and everyone needs to discuss and sign up to it and there should be no pressure to do so.

    Controversial take: This could apply to raids as well as more casual groups and PUGs. The only thing that Dragon Kill Point or Raid Leader allocation systems does is accelerate progression at the expense of fairness. Often, guilds will sign up for this and that's fine, I guess. Also often guilds will use this as an excuse to favour the guild 'leaders' in a pyramid-scheme-type arrangement that has the guise of what's 'good for the guild'. If you are all about progression, then it makes sense. If you prefer a feeling of fun and fairness, you might well be willing to forego the accelerated progression.

    To be honest I'm not sure about how it *should* work in guilds. I've experienced the bad and the good.

    P.S. I want to make it clear that I am the kind of person that would almost always give a heavy discount to someone who needed an item I won, or even just 'lend' it to them (and not really expect it returned in a hurry). But that should not be automated or expected. That should be something that I *choose* to do in a social manner. If I win a breastplate and the warrior has been an a-hole then I will use that experience to teach them a lesson about their behaviour, or maybe I will sell it to them at a premium or maybe I will give it to them anyway, but the fact that they've been an ass and I still give it over should *mean* something, not be something that is simply an expectation and *I* would have been the ahole if I hadn't done it.

    Anyway, I'm waffling on.

    TL;DR: I agree with Ranarios that looting is a very important social activity but further, it should not be prejudiced by personal notions of 'need' or 'greed'. Loot is a reward for your part in the group activity. What you *do* with that loot that you won is the social aspect, not interpretations and arguments over whether you deserve it or not.


    This post was edited by disposalist at October 13, 2020 4:59 AM PDT
    • 403 posts
    October 13, 2020 4:55 AM PDT

    I disagree with the greed notion. What ever is in the best interests of the group should come before individual gain. If the item is not needed by those that can use it, then it is greed. And only then.

    I think multiple mechanics should be selectable by the group leader and that choice is made clear to group members joining and when the mechanic is changed. But I for one, will only participate in groups that put need first.

    • 1208 posts
    October 13, 2020 6:42 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    In One Word - Tell us your thoughts on NEED or GREED for Group Loot? #MMORPG#CommunityMatters

    NBG.....  Need before Greed

    • 715 posts
    October 13, 2020 7:22 AM PDT

    LootRules

     

    LootRules and options identified when you click that group invite, whether it all RNG, NBG, Leader gets everything, or whatever the system is that the group is created with. As long as everyone knows up front, there should be little conflict.

     

    NBG in a game where one may need multiple versions of the same equipment slot to deal with environments, could lead to more conflict into what is NEED vs GREED for someone.

     

    • 499 posts
    October 13, 2020 7:23 AM PDT

    deception

    • 23 posts
    October 13, 2020 8:17 AM PDT

    Let me start by saying this. EVERY system will have its a$$hats, greedy MFer, exploiter, or just general "bad apple"!  No matter the system, there will be an equal number of support tickets for VR to handle. ALSO, "need before greed" is just a socially acceptable construct of the majority. it would also fall under what most would and are calling "fair".

    disposalist said:

    To encourage a positive, social looting system that also, yes, is fair, you can only allocate randomly to whoever was in on the fight and *then* the winner can trade, keep, give away, destroy, or do whatever they like, in discussion with the group or as arrangements on-the-side, but with no prejudice, expectation or pressure *other than* the social interaction with other players and the reputation gained from it.

    The warrior should get the breastplate? Well, then the warrior needs to ask politely if they can trade for it, or even borrow it for the rest of the session. That social interaction is priceless. Should they automatically be allocated it, though?...

    Seemingly without knowing it you have endorsed mine and Ranarius' notion that reputation should matter and is paramount.

     

     

     

    disposalist said:

    I'm beginning to think as I type these thoughts that looting is something that should definitely be included in Play Nice Policy. It should be spelled out that everyone in a fight deserves an equal chance at the loot and, after loot is awarded, if you want that loot, you have to ask the winner nicely to trade for it and not complain about the loot distribution being 'unfair' or the winner acting 'unfairly', because that is the opposite of what has happened.

    If a group wants a different loot policy than that then it should be clear that is an *exception* to what is neutral and fair and everyone needs to discuss and sign up to it and there should be no pressure to do so.

    I think this is probably the best idea ive seen yet. it would give VR a justification to handle "ninja looting" tickets with a pre-recorded message referring to the policy.

     

    disposalist said:

    Controversial take: This could apply to raids as well as more casual groups and PUGs. The only thing that Dragon Kill Point or Raid Leader allocation systems does is accelerate progression at the expense of fairness. Often, guilds will sign up for this and that's fine, I guess. Also often guilds will use this as an excuse to favour the guild 'leaders' in a pyramid-scheme-type arrangement that has the guise of what's 'good for the guild'. If you are all about progression, then it makes sense. If you prefer a feeling of fun and fairness, you might well be willing to forego the accelerated progression.

    To be honest I'm not sure about how it *should* work in guilds. I've experienced the bad and the good.

     

    The word "fair" or any derivative of it is subjective. and you used it as such here. Those that do sign up for this type of system collectively agree that it is "fair". It is also part of your own suggestion from above. -----If a group wants a different loot policy than that then it should be clear that is an *exception* to what is neutral and fair and everyone needs to discuss and sign up to it and there should be no pressure to do so.-----with that being said, I dont think it does anything at the "expense of fairness" I do agree that some people do use these systems for personal gain, but would argue that the majority of guild leaders who impliment this system, do so to eliviate the whining and crying about how is loot gonna be handled. And it also encourages raid attendance.

     

    I dont mean to single you out disposalist, you just had the most thoughts that i could quote. No ill intention was meant towards you.

     

    --edited to add thoughts--

     


    This post was edited by EightBawl at October 13, 2020 8:28 AM PDT
    • 87 posts
    October 13, 2020 8:58 AM PDT

    One word i think about Need/Greed

    stupid / just in PuGs with friends its another thing

    I usualy prepare my characters with the best gear aviable before going somwhere ....its my style of play ...so i usualy end up being the greed roller most of the time if not always. While contributing alot to the group (because my equipment doesnt suck) being the one that almost never can do a need roll just feels unfair. But i rarely complained ...i just went to solo alot of content, if i got fed up, to get the loot i couldn win in groups at the end.

    I kinda liked Counterfleches suggestions would be pretty cool if somone could implement something like this. Esepcially the if sold later split it to the players that helped earn it.

    Counterfleche said: Suggestions on different ways to improve need / greed: 1). If you roll Need, the item becomes unsellable until you've gained 4 levels or played 20 hours. 2). If you roll Need, the names of everyone else in the group is attached as metadata to the item. When you sell it, the proceeds are divided evenly. 3). The Need:Greed ratio if each player is displayed evey time they roll. 4). The less a player selects Need, the more likely they will win Greed rolls. 5). Rename "Need" to something like "I will equip this item now" and rename "Greed" to "I might equip this item later or will sell it". It's wordy, bit it's clear and there won't be much confusion on exactly what the terms mean.


    This post was edited by Ondark at October 13, 2020 9:01 AM PDT
    • 23 posts
    October 13, 2020 9:24 AM PDT

    I think thats a pretty neat idea, but easily exploitable...Just sell the item to my alt/friend at a rediculously low price then sell it later at normal price....

     

    All of this goes back to the simplest solution. Let your reputation follow you. (Occum's Razor) If VR mandates any type of system, then no reasoning behind a bad rep holds water. What i mean by that is if I greed loot everything i can, and am unwilling to trade or sell items to my group, and then am later confronted with "someone said you are a ninja looter" all i have to do is say, "you cant ninja loot in this game, its need or greed, and i rolled greed and won, whats the problem?" The only safe way to do this is to let the players decide in game how loot should be handled. There already seems to be a consensus that NBG is the way to go, and im sure the vast majority of us will have a favorable reputation. So i have to ask, what is wrong with that?

    Im betting that most will say the problem is there will be someone who takes loot and is greedy all the time, which means they will miss out on said loot. Siting this as their reasoning behind some sort of loot mechanic in the game. VR has said on multiple occasions they are making a game where sociallization maters, the journey matters, that they dont want this game to be a "hand holding experrience" I feel like a loot mechanic inevitably hinders social interaction with the click of a button, reduces the meaning of the journey, and dictates to me how i can expect to aquire items.


    This post was edited by EightBawl at October 13, 2020 9:46 AM PDT
    • 359 posts
    October 13, 2020 9:50 AM PDT
    As a general rule, when people are competing together with a common goal against something (the mobs), it brings people together and fosters social interaction. But when people are competing against each other for conflicting goals (obtaining valuable loot), it can lead to toxic behavior, especially in semi-anonymous MMOs.

    We can't change human nature and prevent all bad behavior, but we also must not encourage it through game mechanics which allocate scarce resources in a way that can be easily manipulated and which feels unfair. A perfect analogy is traffic: very few people are going to tailgate or cut others off when there's no traffic on the road, but when traffic is really backed up, many of the same people who were driving calmly before will now lose their patience and start driving in a much more aggressive and competitive manner. So while we can't control human behavior, we can design a system that doesn't draw out toxic behavior.
    • 23 posts
    October 13, 2020 10:03 AM PDT

    Exactly my point for someone siting the need for a "system" to weed out the bad apples. The system is already there: reward good behavior, penalize bad behavior. Isnt that what we do in real life?

    • 2808 posts
    October 13, 2020 10:27 AM PDT

    Want/Pass for all PUGs.

     

    Need is greedy, especially in a game where most all loot is tradable and as such all items retain value long after the groups end. Just because the warrior can wear the breastplate immediately does not mean they are more or less in need than any other group member who contributed toward the kill, it is a nonsense argument based on immediacy rather than genuine needs. Any other group member can likely take that same breastplate and sell/trade it off to get a nice item that would be an upgrade for them. All items hold a currency value, that is what is being rolled on, not the item itself. That warrior gets that 5k value breastplate by default? Then down the line days, weeks, months, (or hours if someone wanted to easily screw unknowing PUGs) that person is cashing in for ~5k at the expense of everyone that helped get that to fund yet more upgrades. 

     

    Need is nonsense that generally only makes sense in a heavily bind on pickup system to prevent vendor trashing something another might have used. 

    • 38 posts
    October 13, 2020 11:04 AM PDT

    Rangerloot

    • 55 posts
    October 13, 2020 1:47 PM PDT

    Karma

    • 2168 posts
    October 13, 2020 3:30 PM PDT

    EightBawl said:

    Let me start by saying this. EVERY system will have its a$$hats, greedy MFer, exploiter, or just general "bad apple"!  No matter the system, there will be an equal number of support tickets for VR to handle. ALSO, "need before greed" is just a socially acceptable construct of the majority. it would also fall under what most would and are calling "fair".

    People can't exploit RNG. If you are in on a fight, you get an equal chance at the loot. Some people might *feel* it's not fair when someone wins the good item ten times in a row, but it is. They have just been lucky. You will be lucky sometimes. That's RNG. But it *is* objectively fair. There may be support tickets, but CS will be able to happily ignore them knowing the loot is allocated fairly (short of actual bugs).

    You can't be an a$$hat if loot is allocated via RNG. How you behave *after* loot has been fairly awarded is up to you, though, but if you expect someone to hand you loot just because you think you 'need' it and they don't? I'm afraid *you* are being the a$$hat (I don't mean you in particular, Eightbawl!). You all took part in the fight. You all had equal chance at the treasure. They won the treasure. Feeling happy for them or feeling jealous and agrieved is up to you.  What you do about your feelings and what they do with the treasure is where the social interaction begins!

    If they don't use RNG, VR can only reduce their support tickets by making explicitly clear what the default/preferred loot method is and what it's implication and short-comings are and good luck with that, VR! because the only objectively neutral one that is simply enough to exhaustively detail is, guess what? Pure RNG.  Need before greed, when you actually have a good think about it, has many flaws and is open to interpretation and abuse.  RNG is not.  It is impartial and, yes, 'fair' (the defintion of fair being something like "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination").

    A couple of obvious flaws with Need/Greed, just to help the discussion: -

    1) There is no significant loot at a particular camp that you can 'need' according to the contrived rules. That means you effectively are either expected to fight for no possibility of decent reward or are effectively excluded from that camp.

    2) There is loot you can 'need' according to whatever the contrived rules are, but you got that drop yesterday, so no longer really 'need' it.  Do you hide that item so you have a chance at some reward?  Or do you effectively exclude yourself from either loot or from the camp?

    3) Your group can't agree upon the contrived rules (does 'need' include alts? Needing the money from selling the item? Do you roll against others that need it or decide who needs it more? Etc etc etc) and don't join up or do and get into a big argument later.

    There are more, I'm sure.

    EightBawl said:

    disposalist said:

    To encourage a positive, social looting system that also, yes, is fair, you can only allocate randomly to whoever was in on the fight and *then* the winner can trade, keep, give away, destroy, or do whatever they like, in discussion with the group or as arrangements on-the-side, but with no prejudice, expectation or pressure *other than* the social interaction with other players and the reputation gained from it.

    The warrior should get the breastplate? Well, then the warrior needs to ask politely if they can trade for it, or even borrow it for the rest of the session. That social interaction is priceless. Should they automatically be allocated it, though?...

    Seemingly without knowing it you have endorsed mine and Ranarius' notion that reputation should matter and is paramount.

    Not without knowing at all. I was trying to be careful to make clear that I agree that the social aspect of looting is important, but with the nuance that Need/Greed does *not* help with that social/reputation aspect of looting.  It sets it off in the wrong direction with prejudices and preconceptions that skew that social interaction and either stifle it or might even make it a negative experience.

    EightBawl said:

    disposalist said:

    I'm beginning to think as I type these thoughts that looting is something that should definitely be included in Play Nice Policy. It should be spelled out that everyone in a fight deserves an equal chance at the loot and, after loot is awarded, if you want that loot, you have to ask the winner nicely to trade for it and not complain about the loot distribution being 'unfair' or the winner acting 'unfairly', because that is the opposite of what has happened.

    If a group wants a different loot policy than that then it should be clear that is an *exception* to what is neutral and fair and everyone needs to discuss and sign up to it and there should be no pressure to do so.

    I think this is probably the best idea ive seen yet. it would give VR a justification to handle "ninja looting" tickets with a pre-recorded message referring to the policy.

    They could go on to describe the implications and shortcomings of the other common loot systems and they *should* do that if they are going to offer them as looting alternatives assisted/automated by the game.

    As I said, the difficulty is, whichever they effectively 'suggest' by making it the default or even listing it first, is the one that players will probably just use without thinking and think is the 'correct' one.

    I suggest again, that pure RNG is the only one to 'safely' recommend as neutral and fair without a lot of potential customer service fallout from people who fall foul of the more flawed systems.

    EightBawl said:

    disposalist said:

    Controversial take: This could apply to raids as well as more casual groups and PUGs. The only thing that Dragon Kill Point or Raid Leader allocation systems does is accelerate progression at the expense of fairness. Often, guilds will sign up for this and that's fine, I guess. Also often guilds will use this as an excuse to favour the guild 'leaders' in a pyramid-scheme-type arrangement that has the guise of what's 'good for the guild'. If you are all about progression, then it makes sense. If you prefer a feeling of fun and fairness, you might well be willing to forego the accelerated progression.

    To be honest I'm not sure about how it *should* work in guilds. I've experienced the bad and the good.

    The word "fair" or any derivative of it is subjective. and you used it as such here. Those that do sign up for this type of system collectively agree that it is "fair". It is also part of your own suggestion from above. -----If a group wants a different loot policy than that then it should be clear that is an *exception* to what is neutral and fair and everyone needs to discuss and sign up to it and there should be no pressure to do so.-----with that being said, I dont think it does anything at the "expense of fairness" I do agree that some people do use these systems for personal gain, but would argue that the majority of guild leaders who impliment this system, do so to eliviate the whining and crying about how is loot gonna be handled. And it also encourages raid attendance.

    I dont mean to single you out disposalist, you just had the most thoughts that i could quote. No ill intention was meant towards you.

    --edited to add thoughts--

    Happy to be singled out for response when a responder isn't rude or negative and you were not, thank you ;^)

    The problem with people 'signing up' to a looting policy is, if VR have suggested or automated it, the assumption will be that it is be impartial and fair, when, unless it is RNG, it is not.

    I use "fair" in its literal sense of 'treating all equally' and RNG is the only safe way to do that. All other common systems, including Need/Greed, can be abused or are interpreted and biased and only situationally fair.

    There was a long discussion about this some years ago in these forums and I did start it thinking, like most people, that Need/Greed was 'fair', but after a long discussion, came to realise it simply isn't, for the reasons I've given.

    Because of that, it's a dangerous thing for VR to 'promote' by making it the default system or even including it as a system-provided option without making it's short-comings clear when it is so easy to believe it is 'best'.

    I'd be pleased for someone to adequately reason how it is fairer than RNG. I know how RNG can *seem* unfair and Need/Greed *sounds* better, but, in a system where items are freely tradeable and loot is not personal, I'm pretty sure it simply and objectively is not.

    P.S. I accept that Vjek's idea of 'social currency' can be made to be fair, but that isn't just a looting system, that is changing what loot *is* and impacting crafting, NPCs, etc. It's a major 'thing' and, whilst it might work I'm not sure it would be a better experience overall, sorry Vjek.


    This post was edited by disposalist at October 13, 2020 3:31 PM PDT